As approved at the May 27, 1999, meeting of the Board of Governors. The "in camera" portion of the minutes have not been included herein. Copies of Appendices not included herein are available from the University Secretariat, Room 290, Stevenson-Lawson Building.
The meeting was held at 2:30 p.m. in Room 330, Stevenson-Lawson Building
PRESENT: Mr. W.W. Peel, Chair, Ms. J.K. Van Fleet, Secretary
Mr. J. Adams, Mr. S. Adams, Mr. R. Bateman, Dr. W.A. Bridger, Dr. R. Colcleugh, Dr. P. Davenport, Mr. J. Etherington, Mr. T. Garrard, Mr. W. Gibson, Ms. S. Grindrod, Mayor D. Haskett, Ms. R. Ivey Thom, Prof. M. Lennon, Mr. D.J. McDougall, Dr. P.P. Mercer, Dr. G. Moran, Mr. T. O'Neil, Mr. M. Pickard, Mr. M. Rubinoff, Dr. J.L. Stokes, Mr. T. Vine, Ms. C. Weldon, Ms. L. Whittaker.
By Invitation: R. Chelladurai, E.S. DelMaestro
The minutes of the meeting of March 25, 1999, were approved as circulated.
Dr. Davenport provided an update on COU advocacy on quality improvement and university expansion. A document prepared by PriceWaterhouseCoopers entitled "Will there be room for me?" was distributed at the meeting. COU will continue to urge the population to lobby all three political parties to announce early that they intend to provide substantial additional support to universities for the goals of quality improvement and expansion in the next decade. Dr. Davenport highlighted his presentation with slides, copies of which are attached as Appendix 1 to these Minutes.
The President provided an update on issues related to the "double cohort". The MET Steering Committee on Double Cohort and Postsecondary Capacity and the MET-COU Working Group on University Capacity meet frequently to explore the expectations of increasing enrolment and the resource requirements of the postsecondary sector to accommodate large numbers of students seeking admission between now and 2010.
The mandated annual report of the Human Relations Tribunal was provided for information. In the past year, there have been no complaints filed with the Human Relations Tribunal.
A list of activities of the President during the month of April 1999 was distributed with the agenda for the information of the Board.
It was moved by W. Gibson, seconded by D. McDougall,
That Section E of By-Law No. 1 be amended to read as follows:
Section E. MEETINGS
14. Spectators may obtain copies of the agenda and the non-confidential portion of the supporting material from the Department of Communications & Public Relations before the meeting. A representative of the Department of Communications & Public Relations may attend the open portion of the meeting and may provide to news media representatives news releases or statements relating to the meeting.
15. The agenda and supporting documentation for open meetings of the Board may be published electronically by the Secretary prior to each Board meeting.
16. The Official Minute Book shall be open to the inspection of any member of the Board at any time during regular office hours in the office of the Secretary of the Board, but such inspection shall not be permitted by other persons.
(a) The Secretary shall be responsible for safeguarding the confidentiality of the Minutes of closed sessions of Board meetings but shall have discretion to furnish extracts therefrom to authorized officers of the University or in satisfaction of a reasonable request.
(b) The Minutes of the open meetings of the Board may be published electronically by the Secretary following their approval by the Board.
CARRIED
It was moved by W. Gibson, seconded by D. McDougall,
That Special Resolution No. 9 - Election Procedures - be amended to read as follows:
Faculty-at-Large Constituency (2 members)
1. To be eligible for election, a candidate must be a full-time member of the Faculty of the University, or a Clinical Academic appointed under Conditions of Appointment: Physicians Appointed in Clinical Departments and Clinical Divisions of Basic Science Departments (1999), at the rank of Assistant Professor or higher who has held academic appointments at the University for at least four academic years.
2. The following members of Faculty are eligible to vote:
(a) all full-time members of the academic staff of the University at the rank of Lecturer, Instructor, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, or Professor; and
(b) all Clinical Academics appointed under Conditions of Appointment: Physicians Appointed in Clinical Departments and Clinical Divisions of Basic Science Departments (1999) at the rank of Lecturer, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, or Professor; and
(c) all part-time members of the academic staff of the University at the rank of Assistant Professor or higher
who are listed as such in the Records section of the Division of Human Resources.
CARRIED
It was moved by W. Gibson, seconded by D. McDougall,
That Special Resolution No. 4 - Investments - be amended to replace "Manager, Financial Analysis & Budget Administration" with "Treasurer", in Group B of the signing authorities for Investments. [See Annex 1, Appendix II]
CARRIED
Dr. Colcleugh, Chair of Property & Finance, introduced the budget document. He asked that the Vice-President (Administration) and the Provost & Vice-President (Academic) present an overview of the budget, and indicated that following that presentation, he would present a series of four motions which would be debated and voted on in turn. The motions vary from those considered by Property & Finance on April 12 and recommended on the cover page of Appendix III in view of the recommendation of the Senate on April 16 that medical tuition fees be frozen for the next three years.
Overview of the Operating Budget
Dr. Mercer described the context of the 1999-2000 operating and capital budgets. Four years ago there was a very significant budget cut of almost $26 million. The full effect of that cut is just beginning to be felt. Throughout Ontario, students are paying more for their education than in any other province, and that translates into considerable concerns by everyone at °ÄÃÅÁùºÏ²Ê¿ª½±Ô¤²â about accessibility. Accessibility, however, is not the only issue: there is a significant issue relating to the student/faculty ratio. In Ontario, there are 19.8 students to each faculty member; in other provinces that ratio is 16.1 to 1.
Dr. Mercer highlighted the various aspects of the Operating Budget. A summary of his remarks appear in slides reproduced on pages 1-6 of Appendix 2 of these Minutes.
Summarizing the Operating Budget, Dr. Mercer noted the Provision for Cost Increases. It has three components: (1) employee salaries; (2) benefit costs; and (3) physical plant utilities. A surplus of $1.1 million is projected for 1999-2000, but that is off-set by a $2.9 million deficit in 1998-99. For the first time, however, the carryforward balance reaches zero. This is not a significant item in the budget tables, but it is significant conceptually: there is no carryforward cushion.
Overview of the Capital Budget
Dr. Mercer then described the Capital Budget which attempts to address two fundamental priorities: that of deferred maintenance in all of its manifestations, and the need to upgrade and improve instructional facilities in order to meet program pressures. Revenues in support of the Capital Budget include $750,000 transferred out of the Operating Budget consistent with the strategic plan, ATOP infrastructure funds, Operating Budget monies transferred as a result of improvements to facilities in Medicine and Dentistry, and bank loans in the case of the stadium and new telephone system. A new 600-seat classroom is of high priority, and improvements to some 60 general use classrooms will make a real difference on campus. Because of the pressures to have these facilities available on September 1, 1999, the Capital Reserve will be $1.1 million below the Board-mandated target. Looking ahead, it is clear that the double cohort and the entire demographic profile over the next 15 years will have significant space implications for the University.
Senate Recommendation to Freeze Medical Tuition Fees
Returning to the issue tuition fees, Dr. Mercer referred to the discussion document circulated in January which contained the administration's proposals. Of particular interest were those proposed for the HBA program, dentistry, and medicine. Discussion around those fees resulted in some changes to the proposals that were submitted for approval this month. In the case of fees for medical residents, last year the administration took the position that a tuition fee of $1500 was appropriate. Although the administration continues to believe that, there are two major differences in the context last year and this year: initially it was believed that all universities in Ontario with medical schools would be imposing such a fee and that medical residents would be treated for OSAP purposes as if they were still students. It is now the case that only the University of Toronto will be charging the fee, and the assumption about OSAP was incorrect. It is for those reasons that the administration did not feel it could support implementing the fee, and therefore recommended that it not be imposed. In the case of tuition fees for incoming medical students, the January proposal that 1999-2000 tuition increase to $11,000 and move up to $13,000 in 2001-02 was revised. The recommendation to SCUP, Senate and Property & Finance was that tuition fees be frozen for the incoming medical class of 1999-2000 and move up to $11,000 and $12,000 in the succeeding two years.
Dr. Mercer reported that at the April 16 meeting of Senate, the Dean of the Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry introduced an amendment to freeze tuition levels in medicine at $10,000 in each of the three years. The argument made in support of the amendment was that the effect on accessibility was potentially so great that tuition fees needed to be frozen. The counter-argument, advanced by the administration and others, was that in the context of the whole budget, the fees were not only necessary but defensible and furthermore that the flow-through of those fee revenues into the Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry was necessary to sustain and enhance the program that those students would be entering. There is reference in the budget document (page 7) to base budget funding for the Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry amounting to $462,800 "to support new initiatives, including faculty renewal and direct support of the new undergraduate curriculum." Adding this amount to the base budget depends on the continued tuition fee increases that had been posited by the proposal to increase medical tuition to $12,000 in 2001-02. In light of the amendment passed at Senate, the idea of adding $462,800 to base is compromised.
Dr. Moran focused his comments on the implications of the Senate recommendation that medical tuition fees be frozen at $10,000 for the next three years. He acknowledged that the debate at Senate was extensive. Understandably it centred on the tuition fees themselves and important related issues such as accessibility. There was no opportunity to explore in detail the other side of the question, the expenditure implications. In the case of Medicine, the issue is particularly complex because the revenue coming from the medical student fees anticipated in those three years was directly tied to a multi-year reinvestment plan.
Dr. Moran referred to the Looking Forward document in which an approach to the issue of increasing tuition fees was articulated. Integral to that approach is the assertion that there is no entitlement of a Faculty of registration to the revenue generated from tuition fees. The University has never been governed that way and Faculty budgets have never been allocated in that way. Faculties vary in the expense of their programs and, under a differential fee regime, in their ability to attract revenue via tuition. In some programs, there may come a point where tuition fees will reach a level where it is legitimate to entertain the possibility that some portion -- but not all -- of that revenue could be allocated directly to the program.
The Provost explained that in December/January this year, in conjunction with Dr. McMurtry, Dean of Medicine & Dentistry, a plan was developed which involved not only increases in medical fees, but also the collection of medical resident fees, as approved last year. That plan, from the outset, explicitly involved a plan to link the reinvestment amounts to the value of tuition. Any change in the fees proposed in the January document were, in a mechanistic way, related to the allocation to the investment plan for Medicine. He quoted from the January document:
Should HBA/Dental/Medical tuition fees fall below the levels recommended in Section C below [specified a particular program of reinvestment], the reinvestment plan in the Faculty will be reduced by 70% of the resulting reduction in annual fee revenue and student financial aid will be adjusted to reflect the reduction in the 30% set-aside funds.
With the aid of slides, included as Appendix 3 to these Minutes, Dr. Moran detailed the effect of the tuition revenue shortfall based on the Senate recommendation to freeze medical tuition fees, excluding any reference to medical residents fees, since the proposal advanced to Senate and the Board recommended not implementing those fees. The tuition revenue shortfall is the determining factor of the impact on the investment plan in Medicine in each of the three years, 1999-2002. The impact on student aid is dramatic: the funds available to medical students will be $234,000 less than the plan based on tuition increases to $12,000 in 2001-02.
Dr. Moran explained that the reinvestment plan for Medicine involves two components in each of the three years: $500 million in capital and a component for other important initiatives, including the hiring of new faculty. In the proposal that went to Senate and Property & Finance, the plan was to go from $963,000 in 1999-2000 ($500K capital + $463K) and increase to $1.1 million ($500K capital + $600K) in 2001-02. The impact of the Senate amendment is that the plan would begin at $963,000 in 1999-2000, but drop to $554,000 in 2001-02. Although there is some discretion in the way in which the monies would be allocated, because of the importance of the capital investment, there was a clear indication in the budget document that there would be a $500,000 capital investment in each of the three years. That means that in 2001-02 there would be only $54,000 of the $600,000 included in the original plan that would be allocated to the base budget. Dr. Moran stated that this is not a plan for reinvestment in Medicine: the needs for the Faculty remain, but the revenue is not there. He summarized the planning implications of the Senate amendment to freeze medical tuition fees as follows:
• All but $54K of 1999-2000 reinvestment in Medicine is one-time money
• There is less short-term flexibility for balancing the Faculty's budget
• Educational, Research, and physical facilities needs will remain unmet
• There is a need to develop a new plan for reinvestment with the new Dean
• The additional revenue source will be eliminated; it will be necessary to look to general revenues
With respect to the issue of finding the balance between accessibility and tuition, Dr. Davenport reminded the Board of the presentation by students to the CCAC and the documents that were distributed to Board members relative to that presentation. Those issues were also raised at the Senate meeting. The problem is to balance the very real issues of accessibility which exist throughout the University with the question of investing funds for budgetary balance and quality so that the University can provide a quality of education that we can be proud of.
Motions and Debate
BG.99-91a It was moved by R. Colcleugh, seconded by M. Lennon,
That the Board of Governors approve the 1999-2000 University Operating and Capital Budgets shown in Annex 1, including the University's Quality Improvement Plan, but excluding any tuition fees, and on the understanding that the reinvestment in Medicine for 1999-2000 will be determined by the Provost in consultation with the incoming Dean of Medicine & Dentistry.
Mayor Haskett expressed support for the notion of freezing tuition fees for medical students, but was concerned that the reinvestment in Medicine might be affected negatively. Given the excellent reputation of the Faculty and the need to keep pace with other schools of medicine, she urged that there be some "creative financing" to ensure that investment in the Faculty is sufficient to meet its needs. She also asked that the Board be kept apprised of progress in discussions between the Provost and the new Dean of Medicine & Dentistry. Dr. Moran agreed that the University takes great pride in the accomplishments of the Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, but observed that the remainder of the University is equally challenged budgetarily, and there is no obvious slack left in the system: creative financing is not an easy option.
In response to a question from Mr. J. Adams about the wording of the motions being advanced today, the Chair of the Board explained that the motions from Property & Finance were formulated before Senate met. It was with Senate's proposal to freeze medical tuition fees in mind that the motions were formulated in order to isolate the medical tuition fee as a separate decision.
Mr. J. Adams stated that when he voted on the medical tuition fee amendment at Senate, it was his understanding that the reinvestment in Medicine would be sustained. He noted that the formula cited by the Provost from the January document, involving reductions to reinvestment should tuition levels drop, was not approved by Senate. He argued, therefore, that it should not be applied. Dr. Davenport explained that the motions before the Board attempt to present a budget that makes sense in terms of principles set out in the January document and to react to the freeze approved by the Senate. The University's Act gives the Board of Governors full authority over tuition fees and budgets: the motions are an honest attempt to allow the Board to exercise its responsibility to deal with the expenditure realities of an action recommended by Senate with respect to tuition revenues.
Mr. S. Adams asked how it is that Senate is involved in tuition and budgets, given the clear authority of the Board in such matters, as set out in the Act. It was explained that for some 25-30 years it has been °ÄÃÅÁùºÏ²Ê¿ª½±Ô¤²â's tradition to review the budget and make a recommendation on it to the Board; the Board has welcomed that articulation from the academic community. Dr. Mercer stated that although the lines drawn in the Act between the powers of Senate and the Board are clear, in the current budgeting environment it becomes difficult to differentiate operationally between what are academic matters and what are finance matters.
The question was called and CARRIED.
BG.99-91b It was moved by R. Colcleugh, seconded by L. Whittaker,
That the Board of Governors approve the tuition fees as summarized on pages 11-12 (and detailed in Tables 10a and 10b) of the operating budget, except the reference to tuition fees for incoming undergraduate Medical students in 2000-01 and 2001-02.
CARRIED
BG.99-91c It was moved by R. Colcleugh, seconded by R. Bateman,
That tuition fees for incoming undergraduate medical students remain at $10,000 for 2000-01 and 2001-02.
Ms. Weldon stated that she respects the recommendation from Senate but that she had concerns about freezing medical tuition. As a Senator who attended the April 16 meeting, she did not think that Senate fully understood the impact of the freeze on the budget, both for the Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry and for the University as a whole. She advised that when the amendment was approved by Senate, she clearly understood that there would be implications for the expense side of the budget as well as on the revenue side, although not in any detail, and that was one of the reasons for her discomfort with the decision. She also expressed concern that the new Dean of Medicine & Dentistry has not had an opportunity to consider the long-term planning issues for the Faculty that arise from a freeze on medical tuition.
Dean Stokes observed that the Senate's recommendation on medical tuition fees has been honored by the presentation of this motion. The information presented by the Provost at this meeting, however, suggests that the implications of the tuition freeze have greater magnitude both in dollar terms and in significance than was clear at the Senate meeting. In his view, Senate should have a fair chance to understand all of the implications of the freeze, and he suggested that the matter of medical tuition fees for 2000-01 and 2001-02 should not be decided at this time. Rather than setting Senate's motion aside, he suggested that it be referred back to Senate and he offered the following motion, which was seconded by L. Whittaker:
That the motion be referred back to Senate with a request that SCUP consult with the incoming Dean of Medicine & Dentistry and consider explicitly the implications of the foregone revenue for the academic and student-support programs in the Faculty.
Mr. Gibson, also a member of Senate, stated that Senate's decision on medical tuition fees troubled him. During the Senate meeting he had the feeling that Senators were being rushed into a decision without having an understanding of its impact on the Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry. It would have been preferable, in a major decision such as this, had the proposal come as a notice of motion in order that the administration have an opportunity to respond. The information provided to the Board today by Dr. Moran was not presented at Senate. He supported the motion to refer the matter back to Senate for further study. He acknowledged that another option the Board might choose is to increase the medical fees as originally proposed in the budget document, which would be divisive.
Ms. Ivey Thom also spoke in favor of the motion to refer in order that there be more consideration of the implications of the move on the expense side of the budget.
In response to questions about the procedure and timing of the referral, Dean Stokes said that technically it would be referred back to Senate, but the review would take place at the level of SCUP. SCUP would then report to Senate and Senate would return with its view, through the President to the Board. That view could well be the same -- to freeze medical tuition fees at $10,000. As for timing, there needs to be an opportunity for the new Dean to become involved in the discussions. When the Senate would report back, he could not say.
Mayor Haskett stated that she was reluctant to support the motion to refer because of her concern that the ultimate outcome might be that Senate would vote differently once the administration advises about the cuts in investment in the Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry.
Mr. Rubinoff spoke against the motion to refer, stating that it is, in effect, a motion to reconsider. He observed that the Board has the authority to table the motion and wait to hear the outcome of discussions between the Provost and Dean, as provided in the first motion, or to make a decision one way or the other on the main motion. In his view, referral was not the appropriate action.
The MOTION TO REFER was called and CARRIED. The President asked that his abstention be noted in the Minutes.
BG.99-91d It was moved by R. Colcleugh, seconded by M. Lennon,
That the Board of Governors approve the Other Fee Schedules and Tuition Deposits shown in Annex 2 to Appendix III.
CARRIED
It was moved by R. Colcleugh, seconded by S. Grindrod,
That the Board of Governors approve the 1999-2000 budgets for Student Fee Funded Units, Ancillaries, and Academic Support Units, and related Activity Fee Rates, as summarized in Annex 3 to Appendix III.
CARRIED
It was moved by R. Colcleugh, seconded by W. Gibson,
That the Board of Governors consider collection of fees for other organizations with the provision of the following information, submitted to the Secretary of the Board of Governors by March 20 each year: (1) a copy of the organization's audited financial statements for the immediately preceding fiscal year; (2) a copy of the budget for the fiscal year to which the fees relate, including a projected balance sheet; and (3) a fee proposal to be considered at the April meeting of the Campus and Community Affairs Committee. If the annual budget of the organization is less than $1,000,000, a review engagement report from an external accountant will be acceptable in lieu of item (1) above. If these conditions cannot be met by the stated deadline, the proposed fees will not be considered for implementation in the forthcoming academic year.
The suggested date, March 20 (which would be extended to the next following Monday when March 20 falls in a weekend), is consistent with the CCAC's rules for public meetings where submissions are required at least two weeks prior to a scheduled open meeting.
Mr. J. Adams asked that the resolution be in the form of a policy statement. Dr. Davenport clarified that the Board's approval of this recommendation establishes the policy of scheduling of an annual meeting of the Campus and Community Affairs Committee with representatives of the USC, SOGS, and MBAA for the purpose of reviewing student organization fees. [Secretary's Note: This policy statement has been added to Policy 2.4 - Student Fees - which details the policy and procedure for approving student fees.]
The question was called and CARRIED.
It was moved by R. Colcleugh, seconded by C. Weldon,
That the Board of Governors approve the project priorities and Faculty/unit goals for inclusion in The University of °ÄÃÅÁùºÏ²Ê¿ª½±Ô¤²â Ontario's 125th anniversary fund raising campaign as detailed in Appendix IV, Annex 4.
Mr. Garrard outlined the process by which the projects were submitted by Faculties and units and selected for inclusion in the 125th Anniversary Campaign. His remarks were summarized on slides, copies of which are attached as Appendix 4 to these Minutes.
Mr. Etherington asked whether plans are in place for allocating any funds received beyond the $270 million goal. Mr. Garrard explained that those monies would be used to fund projects that appear on "List B" which is the list of projects identified in the initial $320 million listing but which were not included in List A in the first round.
Mr. Rubinoff asked why there is a large disparity between Business and Medicine & Dentistry targets compared to targets of other Faculties. Mr. Garrard stated that in trying to establish the goals Faculty by Faculty, many things must be taken into account, such as the historic experience of each Faculty in attracting funding, the attractiveness of the projects to potential donors, and the types of projects identified by each Faculty. Also, some Faculties were more ambitious in their aims.
In response to a question about ongoing fund raising beyond the scope of the 125th Anniversary Campaign, Mr. Garrard said that 10 years ago when major university capital campaigns were conducted, by the end of the fifth year of the campaign, all the staff disappeared. That is no longer the case. It is important that the fund raising enterprise be sustained after the campaign to continue to attract the resources to the University.
Dr. Davenport advised that the administration will continue to present other kinds of measures of the fund raising which is cash actually received in a given year. What the fund raisers present is new cash and new pledges in a particular year. The $270 million campaign will involve some pledges made in 2003 that continue for another five years. In the early 80s °ÄÃÅÁùºÏ²Ê¿ª½±Ô¤²â was bringing in $3 million per year in private cash receipted gifts. Following the Renaissance Campaign, annual funds raised increased to the low $20 millions. The 125th Anniversary Campaign should raise that to the $40 millions.
The question was called and CARRIED.
Renovations to the Dental Sciences Building at a cost of up to $5 million, were approved by the Property & Finance Committee at its meeting of April 12, 1999. Details of the project are contained in Appendix IV. The budget model will be reviewed and a more detailed design will be presented prior to the calling of tenders and award of a construction contract.
Renovations to Saugeen-Maitland Hall at a cost of up to $1.35 million were approved by the Property & Finance Committee at its meeting of April 12, 1999. The project will be broken into two contracts: one for the provision of custom-made furniture and furniture repair; and a general contract related to repairs, carpeting, and painting.
Annex 6 to Appendix IV contains the report on new and revised scholarships, awards, and prizes that have been approved by the Property & Finance Committee on behalf of the Board of Governors.
On April 5, 1999, the Campus & Community Affairs Committee met with representatives of the University Students' Council, the Society of Graduate Students, and the MBA Association to discuss 1999-2000 fee levels as proposed by the respective student associations.
In keeping with the terms of reference of CCAC with respect to matters that are within the purview of the Property & Finance Committee, the report and recommendation of CCAC were forwarded to the Property & Finance Committee which approved and recommended the same to the Board. [See the Report of the Property & Finance Committee to the Board, Appendix IV.]
The Board received the University Students' Council annual report on activities within the UCC, detailed in Annex 1 to Appendix V.
It was moved by L. Whittaker, seconded by S. Adams,
That the Board of Governors approve the President's priorities for 1999-2000 as detailed in Annex 1 to Appendix VI.
Each June, the Senior Operations Committee and the President meet to discuss and reach agreement about the priorities for the year to come. Because Dr. Davenport will begin a three-month study leave on May 1, the priorities have been prepared earlier than usual.
Dr. Davenport reviewed his priorities which he highlighted with the use of slides, copies of which are attached as Appendix 5 to these Minutes. The categories used in setting out the priorities include: Setting Directions; Keeping Academic Priorities First; Ensuring Open Administration and Effective Communication; and Strengthening Ties with the External Community.
Dr. Davenport advised that it was suggested to him that a shorter list of priorities would be useful. This is not as easy as it sounds, because there are many audiences, groups, and constituencies that would want to see themselves included. He suggested the following might comprise an abbreviated list: student recruitment; faculty and staff recruitment; undergraduate programs/innovation and creativity; collaborative research; first union agreements with staff/faculty; and 125th Anniversary Campaign. He invited feedback about this shortened list.
The President noted that it has also been suggested that too many performance indicators are used and he agreed to reduce the list, which he will provide in September. Comparisons with other universities or a formal target has been requested. Comparisons will be available for the six MET mandated performance indicators which will be on the website and access will be available to the information of other universities. The MET performance indicators will be included in the September list. In other cases, targets will be generated. For example, for the 125th Anniversary Campaign targets will be set each year for the next five and progress will be matched against those targets. Senate and the Board will be asked to provide comments on both the performance indicators and the targets. MET will be calculating graduation rates and default rates. They will also be working with the universities on a standard form with standard definitions to survey graduates in terms of earnings, employment rates, and the relation between degree and employment. Employment rates for university graduates is another MET performance indicator.
In September, the President will address the Senate and Board of Governors to outline the goals and anticipated activities for the year ahead in a way that reflects the priorities approved by the Board in June.
Discussion focussed on the desirabiity of continuing to build and strengthen community relations and involving the London community in initiatives, such as the Stadium for the 2001 Games. Dr. Davenport stated that °ÄÃÅÁùºÏ²Ê¿ª½±Ô¤²â interfaces with people in a wide variety of settings and asked for advice for improving this area. He agreed to include on his list the bullets: "to increase opportunities for the external community to take advantage of campus facilities and participate in campus activities" and "the University will continue to strive to be a visible part of the community."
Mr. J. Adams stated that the issue of accessibility is addressed in a number of ways, but suggested that accessibility might be addressed as a stand-alone issue. Dr. Davenport agreed to add this suggestion to the list.
The question was called and CARRIED
It was moved by W. Gibson, seconded by C. Weldon,
That the Board of Governors approve the following amended role statement of the Board of Governors:
Role of the Board of Governors
1. To participate in setting the mission and strategic plan of the University, and to focus on the strategic plan, once formulated.
2. To provide stewardship and ensure that University actions support University objectives.
3. To appoint and support the President; to monitor the President's performance
4. To protect and defend the University's autonomy
5. To ensure and monitor the organization's ethical values.
6. To ensure the University's future
7. To advocate on behalf of the University: to understand the University, its mission, its strategic plan, and its culture, and to explain them to the external community.
8. To identify risks and internal controls
9. To ensure adequate resources and financial solvency
10. To set policy
11. To ensure good management
12. To assess Board performance
Mr. J. Adams suggested minor editorial changes to item 2: "... that the University's actions support the University's objectives." He also suggested that items 1 and 2 be reversed, re-establishing the original ordering as approved in 1997, on the grounds that the most important role the Board plays is that of stewardship. Participation setting the mission and strategic plan of the University is a secondary role, he argued. Dr. Davenport disagreed, stating that the University's objectives are based on the mission and strategic plan of the institution, and therefore the ordering of the first two items in the list, as shown, is appropriate.
With no objection from the Board, the motion was WITHDRAWN and will be reconsidered by the Senior Operations Committee.
Dr. Bob Colcleugh has been nominated to serve as one of three University representatives on the Board of Directors of RRI. He will replace Libby Fowler who has resigned. The other UWO representatives are Dr. Bill Bridger and Dr. Bob McMurtry.
By majority vote the Board agreed to continue the meeting until 6:30 p.m.
(Signed)
W.W. Peel, Chair
J.K. Van Fleet, Secretary of the Board